US 1.4% of white Americans owned slaves

[Nightshade]

Is not everything questionable for as long as unanswered questions remain?


I'm going to break my rule of never posting more words that I can get away with to try and cast light on something on my mind ...


Spent a fair part of my life as a troubleshooter in small businesses. A job that was always had the least possible time and disruption as it's two main criteria.

Always the problems that needed to be sorted were people based problems and had long long 'histories' of whom had done what to whom.

Blame cultures, basicaly, and the history of blame was always unravelable in any way that was not going cause as many greivances as it solved.

Fix always the same:

Put the past to rest; Forgive in return for forgiveness; Agree new strategy for benefit of all; No looking back; Move on.

Then you're doomed to have history repeat itself ad infinitum.

 

[das_nut]

The media promotes Churchill and Roosevelt(together responsible for the deaths of millions of people). I don't see how the opposing side could be much worse. If there was a debate and they looked bad, we wouldn't hear much from them after that. I believe in consistency, so all historical events should be treated the same way.

So we should include the claims of Holocaust deniers? We should be educating children not only on the conventional view of WWII, but also on the view that the Jews, through a vast conspiracy, were controlling and overthrowing governments and were responsible for all of Germany's problems, but not only that, but they faked the deaths of millions in order to continue to control the world?

 

[FortyTwo]

So we should include the claims of Holocaust deniers? We should be educating children not only on the conventional view of WWII, but also on the view that the Jews, through a vast conspiracy, were controlling and overthrowing governments and were responsible for all of Germany's problems, but not only that, but they faked the deaths of millions in order to continue to control the world?

If history doesn't matter, then why should we include any of it at all? Remember that the Holocaust exists in a little separate bubble from everything else and we should just move on, and focus on this bubble so once a certain amount of time is elapsed, we can ignore everything that happened over that period, as it clearly doesn't matter anymore.

That wasn't even a passive aggressive jab - this is exactly the viewpoint that RF1 seems to be perpetuating.

 

[das_nut]

If history doesn't matter, then why should we include any of it at all? Remember that the Holocaust exists in a little separate bubble from everything else and we should just move on, and focus on this bubble so once a certain amount of time is elapsed, we can ignore everything that happened over that period, as it clearly doesn't matter anymore.

Yah, what can we learn from the Holocaust? It can't influence people today.

In completely unrelated news, why does Israel seem so completely paranoid about Iran getting nuclear weapons?

 

[Clueless Git]

Yah, what can we learn from the Holocaust?

Factory farming learned loads from it.

 

[das_nut]

Factory farming learned loads from it.

Oh? Like what?

 

[rainforests1]

You don't see how the opposing side could be much worse? So, the Nazis!? The Japanese camps full of unethical experimentation?

Look, I can appreciate the sentiment that leads to the conclusion that killing in any situation is wrong, and certainly that's how it should be, but if you can't understand that the Allies in World War II were fighting a necessary war, deaths and all, then I don't know what I can do for you.

Look up the Morgenthau Plan. Signed by Roosevelt and Churchill. What caused World War 1? Alliances. You learn from history, so you avoid alliances. England and France did the opposite. Their alliance with Poland caused what should have been a smaller war into a bigger one, similar to the first World War. Considering what they knew in 1939(they didn't have a crystal ball), they should have stayed out and allowed Germany and Russia to fight it out. I believe Harry Truman was one of the many who felt this way.

 

[rainforests1]

Yah, what can we learn from the Holocaust? It can't influence people today.

I recall a genocide in Rwanda that the rest of the world looked the other way for 3 months. Talking about genocide over and over again didn't seem to help in this case.

 

[rainforests1]

So we should include the claims of Holocaust deniers? We should be educating children not only on the conventional view of WWII, but also on the view that the Jews, through a vast conspiracy, were controlling and overthrowing governments and were responsible for all of Germany's problems, but not only that, but they faked the deaths of millions in order to continue to control the world?

I've never read a historian who would be considered a Holocaust denier that has made comments close to these. A debate would feature the more knowledgeable historians against one another. Any normal person off the street would not be allowed.

 

[das_nut]

I've never read a historian who would be considered a Holocaust denier that has made comments close to these. A debate would feature the more knowledgeable historians against one another. Any normal person off the street would not be allowed.

Harry Elmer Barnes was a holocaust denier who blamed Jews and the Free Masons for starting WWI, and praised the statement that Israelis were perpetuating a Holocaust hoax to gain money from other countries.

It isn't too far from what I claimed.

The problem with teach all sides (aka, equal time for nutjobs), is that when it comes to teaching, you are, by definition, teaching someone who doesn't have the knowledge. A lot of research has gone into what, how, and why things have happened. When teaching, this knowledge is ideally distilled for the student. Sometimes this will include mentioning areas of serious academic debate, or promising new, but still unproven, claims. That's good. But it is a disfavor to the student to treat wildly unconventional, poorly grounded claims on the same standing as sound, researched, and conventionally accepted claims.

 

[das_nut]

What caused World War 1? Alliances. You learn from history, so you avoid alliances. England and France did the opposite. Their alliance with Poland caused what should have been a smaller war into a bigger one, similar to the first World War. Considering what they knew in 1939(they didn't have a crystal ball), they should have stayed out and allowed Germany and Russia to fight it out. I believe Harry Truman was one of the many who felt this way.

Norway was neutral. Norway even had heavy strains of pacifism. And Norway was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Belgium's king declared his country's neutrality. And Belgian was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Luxemburg was neutral. And Luxemburg was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

The Netherlands declared their neutrality. The Netherlands were invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Denmark declared it's neutrality. Denmark was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Iceland was also neutral. Iceland tried to avoid taking any sides. And Iceland was invaded and forced to cooperate by the UK.

The three Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) also tried to remain neutral. They were invaded, conquered, and occupied by the Soviets, then invaded and occupied by the Nazis, then invaded and occupied a second time by the Soviets, then annexed to the Soviet Union - their independence was lost for 50 years.

Staying out of WWII is easier said then done. It frequently ended badly for the nations trying to be neutral. There were neutral nations that did manage to survive - either by giving up their neutrality entirely (Finland ended up allying itself with the Nazis to save it's bacon from the Soviets, the US gave up its formal neutrality and sided with the allies after Germany and Japan declared war on the US), by staying peripheral to the action (Spain), by being heavily defended bother militarily and by natural terrain (Switzerland), or by engaging in amazing games of realpolitik (Sweden). But it wasn't a done deal. Out of the 20 or so neutral nations at the start of WWII, only seven were able to maintain their neutrality until the end of the war.

 

[FortyTwo]

I recall a genocide in Rwanda that the rest of the world looked the other way for 3 months. Talking about genocide over and over again didn't seem to help in this case.

No, that was the result of underlying white superiority complexes in people who don't care to talk about things like this because they'd rather believe the capacity to commit genocide is a thing of the past.

You know, where they decide not to focus on history.

 

[Clueless Git]

Oh? Like what?

How to corale, transport and slaughter livestock like people* on an industrial scale for one thing.

That one 'happy farm' publicity film is enough to sate most peoples consciences that all is well behind closed walls for another.

My personal favourite though: The antipathy to compliance you can gain by the appeal to ego of one group of sentients that they are 'better' than another.


*Technicaly correct; The industrial scale techniques now applied to livestock were first developed during the holocaust not for use on animals but for use on people.

 

[rainforests1]

das nut's one example of a historian who had much different beliefs than the norm tells me there aren't too many.

Norway was neutral. Norway even had heavy strains of pacifism. And Norway was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Belgium's king declared his country's neutrality. And Belgian was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Luxemburg was neutral. And Luxemburg was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

The Netherlands declared their neutrality. The Netherlands were invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Denmark declared it's neutrality. Denmark was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Nazi Germany.

Iceland was also neutral. Iceland tried to avoid taking any sides. And Iceland was invaded and forced to cooperate by the UK.

The three Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) also tried to remain neutral. They were invaded, conquered, and occupied by the Soviets, then invaded and occupied by the Nazis, then invaded and occupied a second time by the Soviets, then annexed to the Soviet Union - their independence was lost for 50 years.

Staying out of WWII is easier said then done. It frequently ended badly for the nations trying to be neutral. There were neutral nations that did manage to survive - either by giving up their neutrality entirely (Finland ended up allying itself with the Nazis to save it's bacon from the Soviets, the US gave up its formal neutrality and sided with the allies after Germany and Japan declared war on the US), by staying peripheral to the action (Spain), by being heavily defended bother militarily and by natural terrain (Switzerland), or by engaging in amazing games of realpolitik (Sweden). But it wasn't a done deal. Out of the 20 or so neutral nations at the start of WWII, only seven were able to maintain their neutrality until the end of the war.

Hitler's writings indicate Eastern Europe. Germany never invaded a country in Western Europe until AFTER England and France declared war. He wanted living space in Eastern Europe, but not Western Europe. For most countries, staying neutral would have been very easy if England and France had not declared war.

One obvious problem is, when one strong country fights another strong country, you may not win the war. You could see a million of your own citizens die in a war if things go bad. Even if you may be stopping one atrocity, you could be causing another. Politicians lie as well, so this humanitarian cause you're fighting for may be a lie. Around 90% of the US population did not want us getting involved in the war, and a lot of Europeans were very happy when war was avoided in 1938. There were logical reasons for this.

All you have to understand is this:many people become very wealthy from war. Both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, both Iraq wars, Iraq-Iran war, and Afghanistan all have one thing in common:money. It's probably the reason all of them were fought regardless of any humanitarian claims that are made.

 

[das_nut]

das nut's one example of a historian who had much different beliefs than the norm tells me there aren't too many.

I thought you wanted to teach both sides. Are you arguing we should only teach the popular side now?

Hitler's writings indicate Eastern Europe. Germany never invaded a country in Western Europe until AFTER England and France declared war. He wanted living space in Eastern Europe, but not Western Europe. For most countries, staying neutral would have been very easy if England and France had not declared war.

Look at a map of Europe. Where is Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, three nations which declared neutrality? What about Finland, which also tried to be neutral until the USSR interfered?

One obvious problem is, when one strong country fights another strong country, you may not win the war. You could see a million of your own citizens die in a war if things go bad. Even if you may be stopping one atrocity, you could be causing another. Politicians lie as well, so this humanitarian cause you're fighting for may be a lie. Around 90% of the US population did not want us getting involved in the war, and a lot of Europeans were very happy when war was avoided in 1938. There were logical reasons for this.

Was was not avoided in 1938. It was only delayed.

All you have to understand is this:many people become very wealthy from war. Both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, both Iraq wars, Iraq-Iran war, and Afghanistan all have one thing in common:money. It's probably the reason all of them were fought regardless of any humanitarian claims that are made.

People become very wealthy from war. But people also become very wealthy from peace.

 

[das_nut]

How to corale, transport and slaughter livestock like people* on an industrial scale for one thing.

Do you have a source for this?

*Technicaly correct; The industrial scale techniques now applied to livestock were first developed during the holocaust not for use on animals but for use on people.

When I look up the history of factory farming, I find stuff like this:

Factory farming started with chickens and first appeared on the scene in 1926. It wasn't by design but rather the result of an over delivery of 450 chicks to a small farm on the Delmarva Peninsula.

Instead of returning the overage, the farmer/housewife decided to keep them indoors through the winter. The chicks survived and almost ten years later, she had increased her flock to 250,000. Although this was chicken feed by today’s standards, the seeds of chicken factories had been planted.

- Factory-Farming.com

 

[FortyTwo]

Yep. Resemblance doesn't imply derivation.

 

[Clueless Git]

Do you have a source for this?

No, my attempts to Google up some verification failed miserably.

Any combination of industry/industrial+holocaust are swamped out by articles on the 'Holocaust Industry' book.

Not important. On my mind was more that a full bore non human holocaust is still in full swing rather than anything else.

 

[das_nut]

It does a disservice to AR to make claims that are unverifiable.

 

[Clueless Git]

It does a disservice to AR to make claims that are unverifiable.

Sorry, was in a good mood and slackened off a bit there.

I'll not let my guard down again.